ethno-nationalism, europe, fourteen words, Heathen, Islam, minority, nationalism, Pagan, polytheism, violence
A week or so ago I was driving around with my dad and we were listening to talk radio (he likes that stuff), and Mark Levin was on. A guy called in and they were talking about the state of the Right, and the guy said something along the lines of “we need leaders and you conservative talk show guys should step up.” To which Levin forcefully (almost angrily) replied: “NO, YOU THE PEOPLE NEED TO STAND UP!”
He completely passed the buck of responsibility.
Now, I can sort of understand Levin’s position. The Right (well, New Right as I put it) is very much the old right way of individualism. Every man must stand up for himself, collectivism is bad, etc. Why ask someone else to do the job when you should be doing it yourself.
That being said, I personally sided with the caller on this one. Conservative talk show hosts are some of a very, very few who manage to get conservative views out there. Their reach is vast, their power (while no where near that of MSM) is not to be underestimated. I’ve heard Rush drop some redpills that no doubt reached millions. These are men of power and influence, who could be of great value. They know how to speak to the populace. And the simple fact is that the Left has gotten where they are because they had Leaders who led people with singular vision towards desired goals. The Right hasn’t had shit like that until Trump came along…and that’s one of the reasons Trump was so successful. He was a leader who showed the way.
I’ve also joined a group headed by Steven McNallen (something I’d never thought I’d end up doing). It’s not much, just a facebook group, but its very much, well…a meme is probably the easiest way to put it:
McNallen is by no means 88, but I suspect the years have made him very much 14. Which, is fine. It’s taken me years, but I have come to the conclusion that the 14 is very much needed. After all, we’ve only got about 30 years before Europeans are a minority in their own nations, and 50 years at best before that happens in the USA. Even as we speak, Europe and the USA are rapidly shifting to “developing country status.” Even our history is being erased and rewritten.
But as I look out at talk radio, various facebook groups, and other places, I find myself with a dilemma. More and more people are waking up to the fact that drastic, possibly terminal issues, are on the horizon and rapidly coming towards us. Thankfully, there are many conversations about how we cannot allow this to happen, and even a number of conversations about the best solution to deal with the problem, but there is one conversation I don’t see happening.
How far are you (a person) willing to go?
Mark Levin clearly showed his answer to me: no where. He’s got his comfy radio job and his book writing and that’s all he’s going to do. He will be prophet telling of the apocalypse, but he will not lead them in dealing with it. That’s for other people, he doesn’t want to risk what he has for the sake of others. It’s not his responsibility. And he lambasts those who do take up the responsibility in ways he doesn’t like.
So he will not lead, and he will denounce those he will not follow. Which, okay. He’s Jewish, last thing he wants is for a “white nationalist” movement to come out, look at the Privilege of the Jewish community, and then go “Juden Out.” I can’t blame a man for self preservation, but I can find it funny that a man screaming “do something” suddenly shouts “oy vey, goyim no!!!!”
Looking at others though, I do have to ask the same question. The situation is dire, and the number of solutions is rapidly diminishing. In McNallen’s group, and /pol/ and a number of other places I see “the existence of our people is non-negotiable.” But while we’re not willing to negotiate it…what are we really willing to do to preserve it? How far are we willing to go?
Are we willing to have more children? Certainly this is probably the most peaceful option, but it has serious roadblocks to it. Some of us are too old to have children. There’s a very significant gender gap between “redpilled” men and women. There’s also the fact that financially, it’s hard to even get married these days, much less have 2 kids, which is the minimum needed to retain current population levels. On top of that, in order to retain majority status, each couple would need to have closer to 5-6 kids (assuming all of us could get married, which we can’t) and probably closer to 10 kids in order to make up the difference for those who couldn’t marry and reproduce. That would necessitate a stay at home wife…leaving the man to support 11 people on a salary that generally can’t even support one. How many women, even those that support the preservation of our people, are willing to make the sacrifice of having 10 kids? Much less having 10 kids in poverty, which…would probably do more to hurt our people in the long run. And that’s even assuming the 10 kids would retain the redpilled status of their parents. Government education would probably see at least half of them flip over to the “anti-white” side of things. And even then it would be a miracle to have an effect in time. Europe has 30 years, and even if every ethnic European started pumping out 5-6 kids, I don’t know that it would keep up with the Muslim birthrates and immigration rates.
What about going into politics? Well, that option is shot. 90% of the wealthy who would fund a candidate are hard left supporters or Soft Right supporters. The only reason Trump managed to even have a campaign is because he pretty much self funded due to his own wealth. Anyone else will be owned by their financial backers, which would instantly pull the teeth of a candidate willing to engage in politics of preservation. And, given the Republic we live in, we would need a serious number of candidates who didn’t have to compromise in order to effect policy. Just look at Trump, he’s managed to do a lot with what he can, but most of that can be undone by the next guy with a pen and the paper. Lasting changes need Congress, and congress is cuckolded. Politics is the next peaceful way after reproduction, but at this point it isn’t any more viable. While nationalist politicians are making progress…I don’t know that said progress will happen in time, much less time to prevent the necessity of violent solutions.
Simply put, we must consider that violent solutions will be the only solutions, in which case we have to ask how far we each are individually willing to go. If say in 30 years European natives are a minority in their own lands…there will be only two options. They violently fight back against the inevitable oppression or they surrender to it. One need only look at South Africa and other African countries to see what surrender looks like. By that time I will be in my 60’s, well past fighting prime. Most of us will either be in the same boat, or past it.
So…are we willing to make the children fight the battles? Will we force them to fight a war we ourselves were too cowardly to fight ourselves? We are already suffering under the burdens our parents were unwilling to shoulder, and we complain mighty against their weakness. Are we to be even worse than them? They placed us under crushing economic burdens…will we saddle our children with both crushing economic burdens as well as genocidally violent burdens as well? Will we force them to face both poverty and extermination at the same time?
That…doesn’t feel right to me, and I don’t even have children yet.
But let us say that, darkest of days, we do take up violence to preserve our posterity and people. Again, how far are you willing to go? Are you only going to stand to the side and let others carry the burden? Are you willing to follow? Are you willing to lead? Are you willing to round up and expel? Are you willing to round up and put into camps? Are you willing to go door to door and execute?
How many are you willing to kill, personally. How many are you willing to kill collectively? Are you willing to exterminate entire races? Are you willing to kill people not of your race? Are you willing to kill people of your own race? How much blood are you willing to bathe in, in order to save your people’s future? On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “no thanks, I’m full” to 5 being “unquenchable” how willing are you to drink of the blood-filled horn? Are you willing to become demons and monsters so that your children or your people’s children do not have to? Will you but sip, or will you drink as Thor drank the ocean, draining enough to create the very tides themselves? Will even the Jotuns fear your thirst?
How much of yourself are you willing to sacrifice for your people? How many others are you willing to sacrifice for the same? Are you willing to order the deaths of millions, are you merely willing to follow those orders, or will you vomit from the taste of blood and step away, leaving someone else to carry the burden or perhaps losing the fight all together?
Will you carry that burden? Will you make our children? Who will you make shoulder the burden of leading such things? Will you demand others do it for your, will you do it yourself, or will you make no one and allow what happens to happen without protest and resistance?
There’s a saying in the Heathen community: Everyone wants to be a vikingr until its time to go aviking. Various forms of this phrase exist in other communities. But it’s meaning is universal. Everyone wants to talk big about how they are, but when it’s time to be, they all vanish.
We’re reaching the point where we can’t do that anymore. We’ve either got to step up and make more of us or less of the other guys. It ain’t right, it ain’t what we wanted, but everyone else stepped aside. Our Parents, our grandparents. At any point in time in the last eighty years, this could have been prevented. Everyone else didn’t want the burden, so they took the gold and left the debt. Now we have to pay, or we make our children pay even worse than we would need to.
This could mean losing our jobs. Our homes. Our lives even. Our very humanity. But it is the burden the Gods have given us. Will we be faithful and honorable, and pay our dues to protect our children and people…or will we speak of piety and kin and leave the burned for the next generation. What might well be the last generation for all intents and purposes. The Gods have placed this trial before us. They await to see what we are willing to do…or what we demand others do for us because we will not.
How far will you go?
To preserve the planet, I have no children and I encourage others to do the same.
To preserve people with a similar amount of melatonin, absolutely nothing. If we all were exactly the same hue, rest assured we would find a reason to hate the other. Perhaps we will use Star-On and Star-Off machines.
As to preserving our culture, why? All fall to dust eventually. Is there something in particular that those of us of European descent bring to the world, which would vanish in the absence of white children?
Mind you, I too am completely opposed to violence. The idea of eliminating an entire people through violence is abhorrent to me. However, I simply can’t grasp why it matters what color humans are in a century.
Nate Hoover said:
Because not everyone is equal. It isn’t just melanin content. You can have no children and that is your choice but that isn’t preserving the planet anymore than putting a drop of water out of the ocean and saying you lowered the ocean level.
Look at the countries with a European majority and then compare them to countries without one. In fact name a single non Asian country that 1) Is not propped up by a European Country and 2) Has a stable economy and is prosperous. (You won’t)
So Race/Ethnic Group does matter. If you want to “preserve the planet that way” then you say we all fall to dust eventually and to preserve the planet why not take your own Life? (That was a question not a recommendation) If we all fall to dust then one needs not be completely opposed to violence. If you want to save the planet you may as well remove everyone in the inner cities/metropolis. Else you are a coward too actually scared to do something to save the planet in a meaningful way if you believe that the planet needs to be preserved with haste.
Son Of Hel has been spot on so far and I currently have five children that I know of and I am hoping they will all be resourceful and honorable. Doesn’t matter if they are honored or dishonored so long as they are honorable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are two crappy arguments against self-imposed population control. The first is that I should have children and “teach them my values.” The second is that I should kill myself. Leaping to either indicates that there is no discussion to be had here, just the same desperate fear that came up with the idea of a “peace-keeping force.”
Lucius Svartwulf Helsen said:
I fail to see how “kill yourself” is a crappy argument against population control. honestly, in this case if you’re not going to create children, one of the primary reasons for existence, then all you’re doing is using up resources for your own self interest/self pleasure. If your entire goal is to save the planet via population control and drive of that is the limiting the resources used, it is only logical that you yourself not use up resources unnecessarily. A pass could be given about using resources if the goal was to invest in the creation of the future (children) but otherwise you’re just a non-replicating parasite who is a glutton for his own pleasure and stealing resources from those that might be productive and leave a genetic legacy.
now, I’m not saying you should an hero, but then again I’m not someone who believes in limiting populations to preserve the planet. But by your own position the logical course is to remove yourself and your non-replicating parasitism, in order to reduce the burden on the planet.
Euphonia from the River said:
I hope for radical pagan/polytheist terrorists that occupy Christian churches built on holy land and blow up mosques. Muslims use a word polytheist as an insult. They are animals.
Lucius Svartwulf Helsen said:
We must reclaim the holy lands of our ancestors from the Saracens. Asa Vult.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t have children for medical reasons, otherwise I would be setting up the homestead to support as many children as possible. I have also sworn oaths that essentially means I will use violence, to stop anyone who thinks “ethnic cleansing” is the right thing to do. I’m that Heathen who will stand up to a crowd of thugs because they are attacking a woman for wearing a hijab, just as I would stand up to any Muslim fundamentalist attacking others because they think that will send them to paradise. Oh…and yes I’d happily dedicate the bodies of any polytheist that thinks terrorism is right because the people they are attacking aren’t their own to my Gods and I fully expect They would be happy with those offerings. The world has many problems, some of them are massive political movements wrapped up in religious cloth (much of Islam, all of communism though they would protest) that would happily crush me and mine given the chance. That doesn’t suddenly give me the right to break with my oaths or spit in the face of my Gods by waging what amounts to a holy war in Their name when They haven’t shown up and demanded it of me.
Lucius Svartwulf Helsen said:
So you would oppose violently if say the native Brits of rotherham got together to ethnically cleans the muslim community there in response to the continual mass rape of 1400 girls? Or if the Swedes (miracle of miracles) ethnically cleansed their muslim communities which are responsible for 90% of the rapes and the majority of all other crimes in Sweden and specifically targeted against native Swedes?
I mean, good on you keeping your oath if you would, but that seems an oath that is more harmful than good and likely to backfire against you and the innocent. That sounds like an oath to protect all animals, and then opposing efforts to clear out snake heads or asian carp even as they destroy the local environments and devour the native species.
They are military oaths, only releasable by death or the total destruction of this (USA) country. Willingness to be violent and to kill on my part were a given. The innocent? You mean like those people killed every time ethnic cleansing has ever been used?
Yes I would oppose ethnic cleansing in those cases. I would also fully support publicly executing those actually responsible for the rapes, and treating those officials that allowed it to happen as the traitors they are. It isn’t the rivers of blood that bother me, it is the indiscriminate call for slaughtering innocents right alongside the guilty.
Nate Hoover said:
So what about people choosing to self determination and the freedom of association. if one doesn’t want to do ethnic cleansing but just want to be around only those that believe the same as them?
Then go live with other people who believe what you do…or only associate with those that believe as you do. That’s your call…but as soon as you bring violence in as the tool to use to enforce that, you can’t expect anything other than violence in return. Your rights end where they violate anothers, something people as a whole seem to have forgotten.
Nate Hoover said:
So you state that as soon as one brings in violence as a tool to enforce who you wish to associate with then you can’t expect violence in return.
Our freedoms are enforced by violence, the Constitution is just a piece of paper that represents an ideal that people who are willing to use violence are willing to enforce. So if people want to violate your freedom to associate I feel no reason why one could not use violence to enforce your unalienable right of freedom of association.
Our rights end when we stop at being willing to use violence to protect our rights. Our oaths we took to protect the Constitution, not the government not people. It is the Constitution first and freedom to assemble and associate must be willing to fight and die for and that is what I believe Lucius Helson was getting at when he wrote the article.
Nate Hoover said:
I read a long discussion from a group called the Vinlanders. They were a MC that was also Asatru and they proposed about massive amount of children and the wife supports the children while the father works so that having 10+ children but one gets on state assistance as that is what the other groups are doing and his idea he said would eventually collapse the system as the system will collapse anyway, one may as well take advantage of the system and have as many children as possible.
Lucius Svartwulf Helsen said:
So…basically do like parts of the black community do and game the system in the same way to support massive population growth?
it’s an interesting theory, but even assuming the state would supply an increasing number of white women in doing that (which…I doubt), we would still run into the same problems the black community had which is the absence of fathers. And we’d be trying to teach children a religion/civilization all about honor and family…funded by deception and filled with broken families. Assuming the kids wouldn’t be stolen and thrown into foster care as soon as it became apparent they were Heathens.